Transcript Slide 3

Part 3
Suggested Approaches for Obtaining and
Validating Data
COURT STANDARD
The managed and designed use of a trail are
established by individual forest staffs…with the
publics active assistance, and any changes require
public involvement process and land management
planning determinations, including appropriate
(NEPA )review.
Our Concern
Managers may assign trail classes and design
parameters that will not accommodate pack
and saddle stock on trails that were historically
accessible to stock.
Our Task
determine if the change has taken place
through the implementation of the new
system
if it has, whether the agency has
involved the public and followed an
approved land management planning
process as agreed in the court decision.
Step 1
Back Country Horsemen of America
will request a listing of trails
indicating Trail Class and
Managed/Designed Use
for each trail or trail segment
on each Ranger District nation-wide.
This information will be sent
to each state or affiliate organization.
Step 2
The state or affiliate will be responsible
for
taking this listing and assigning districts
or
forests to the chapters/units within their
organization so that we do not duplicate
efforts and unnecessarily impact our
Forest Service partners.
Step 3
The chapter/unit will take the list of trails and
determine which trails are not managed or
designed for pack and saddle stock.
If there is a question regarding that
management objective, the chapter may then
discuss the objective with the District Ranger to
determine the justification for not managing
the trail for
pack and saddle stock.
The Trail Classification System is new and
the agency is still refining the data!
Rangers may not be aware that the management
objectives for a trail might be a concern for
horsemen or reflect a change in the historical
status for the trail.
The Forest Service advised us in April, 2009
“the data is considered working/draft data.
As we continue our training, data validation
and update efforts Agency-wide the quality of
the information will improve.”
At this point, we need to consider our efforts
to be that of helping the agency ‘validate and
update’ its records.
For trails that are not designed or managed for,
or that through special provisions in the
parameters will not accommodate, pack and
saddle stock,
Request that the line officer disclose
the planning document and the public
involvement process used in determining
the uses.
COURT STANDARD
The managed and designed use of a trail are
established by individual forest staffs…with the
publics active assistance, and any changes
require public involvement process and land
management planning determinations,
including appropriate (NEPA )review.
It is anticipated that some trail managers
will consider that it is within their
discretional
authority to determine the uses that are
considered appropriate.
If there is no evidence that a managed or
designed use was established through a
public process, then, except potentially
for emergency situations, the Forest
Service needs to go through a public
process before it can prohibit a use or
intentionally limit a use by assigning
inadequate design parameters.
In many cases, a Forest or District may
not have a specific trails or transportation
management plan.
A trail inventory may have been appended
to the 1st generation Forest Plans completed
in the 1980s or early 1990s
(prior to implementation of the
new Trail Classification System about 1998).
The Forests were required under the planning
regulations that were in effect during the time
that the original Forest Plans were completed,
“to obtain and keep current inventory data
appropriate for planning and managing the
resources …”
Most Forests included an inventory of trails
as part of that data base.
The Forest Plans were completed with
public involvement and subjected to NEPA.
If the inventory in the Forest Plan included
the types of uses that each trail would be
managed or designed to accommodate, it
meets the intent established in the court’s
decision.
The test as to whether the rationale
for making managed or designed use
determinations meets the intent of law
is whether it was determined
“with the public’s active assistance,
and
… land management planning determinations,
including appropriate [NEPA] review.”
Step 5
NEGOTIATE
With the District Ranger or Forest Supervisor
to have the objectives changed to reflect
a managed and designed use for pack and
saddle stock.
The Forest or Ranger District may attempt
to put the burden on us to establish that
trail objectives have changed as a result of
implementing the new Trail Classification
System.
The problem with this is that they also
control access to the information necessary
to make that determination, if they are not
cooperative it may necessitate Freedom of
Information requests and other more
Confrontational means.
At this step in our monitoring process,
we prefer to avoid such confrontation.
Chapters/units are asked to resolve
differences in objectives through a diplomatic
approach with the District Ranger and the
Forest Supervisor.
Step 6
If you are unable to resolve the differences
The state will report to BCHA using
established protocol.
Report the situation to your state president
or the Public Lands Chair.
Once BCHA has determined the extent
And magnitude of the problem we will
Determine an appropriate course of action
With the involvement of your national
directors.
In the interest of preserving our spirit of partnership,
this strategy will provide the agency with every
reasonable means to defend a change in the physical
characteristics of a trail as the result of implementing
the new classification system, or to amend their data
to reflect characteristics in place prior to
implementation of the TCS.
BCHA
Public Lands
State Organization
Or
Affiliate
Responsible Unit
COMMUNICATION
PATH
165 National Forests
BCHA
17 Member States
14 Affiliates
42 States with NFs
16 w/o BCH
Power Points
Prepared From
Materials and Information Submitted
By
Dennis Dailey
Executive Director
Of
Issues and Policy